在雅思閱讀備考中,考生需要積累大量的背景知識(shí),尤其是考試經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)的一些題材。今天小編為大家準(zhǔn)備的是關(guān)于人工智能方面的背景知識(shí),大家可以練習(xí)一下,如果在這篇文章中遇到一些生詞,我們可以通過(guò)查閱的方式去進(jìn)行了解和學(xué)習(xí),接下來(lái)我們就來(lái)看看這篇文章主要講到哪些內(nèi)容。

 電腦上確實(shí)能造就藝術(shù)品嗎?

 The Painting Fool is one of a growing number of computer programs which, so their makers claim, possess creative talents. Classical music by an artificial composer has had audiences enraptured, and even tricked them into believing a human was behind the score. Artworks painted by a robot have sold for thousands of dollars and been hung in prestigious galleries. And software has been built which creates art that could not have been imagined by the programmer.

 “繪畫(huà)愚人”是數(shù)量已經(jīng)慢慢提升的——依照他們的創(chuàng)始者所聲稱的——有著創(chuàng)作才氣的電腦系統(tǒng)之一.由人工智能技術(shù)音樂(lè)家所創(chuàng)作的古典樂(lè)曲以前令觀眾們聽(tīng)得入迷,乃至讓她們誤認(rèn)為這首曲子是人類的作品.由智能機(jī)器人繪畫(huà)的藝術(shù)品以前售出過(guò)千余美金的價(jià)錢(qián)并掛在申明出眾的畫(huà)苑中展覽會(huì).也有一些那樣的手機(jī)軟件,他們創(chuàng)作出去的工藝品是其程序編寫(xiě)者事前壓根未曾想像過(guò)的.

 Human beings are the only species to perform sophisticated creative acts regularly. If we can break this process down into computer code, where does that leave human creativity? ‘This is a question at the very core of humanity,’ says Geraint Wiggins, a computational creativity researcher at Goldsmiths, University of London. ‘It scares a lot of people. They are worried that it is taking something special away from what it means to be human.’

 人類是唯一可以常規(guī)化地進(jìn)行繁雜造型藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作個(gè)人行為的種群.如果我們能夠?qū)⑦@一全過(guò)程溶解變成電腦上編號(hào),那把人類想像力放置何處呢?“這是一個(gè)事關(guān)人的本性最關(guān)鍵的難題”,倫敦大學(xué)金史密斯學(xué)校的一位電子計(jì)算機(jī)想像力科學(xué)研究專家學(xué)者Geraint Wiggins 那樣說(shuō).“它讓很多人害怕恐懼,她們憂慮這會(huì)從人類中奪走一些獨(dú)特的本歸屬于人類的物品.”

 To some extent, we are all familiar with computerised art. The question is: where does the work of the artist stop and the creativity of the computer begin? Consider one of the oldest machine artists, Aaron, a robot that has had paintings exhibited in London’s Tate Modern and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Aaron can pick up a paintbrush and paint on canvas on its own. Impressive perhaps, but it is still little more than a tool to realise the programmer’s own creative ideas.

 在某種意義上,人們對(duì)電腦上創(chuàng)作的造型藝術(shù)都很了解.難題取決于:藝術(shù)大師的工作中是在哪里終止,而電腦上的想像力又是以哪兒剛開(kāi)始的呢?想一想最早的設(shè)備藝術(shù)大師之一:Aaron,這一智能機(jī)器人創(chuàng)作的繪畫(huà)作品展覽在紐約泰特當(dāng)代展覽館和美國(guó)舊金山當(dāng)代藝術(shù)博物館里.Aaron能夠舉起一支畫(huà)筆工具,自身在畫(huà)板上繪畫(huà).或許的確令人震驚,但它也依然只不過(guò)便是一臺(tái)用于完成程序編寫(xiě)者自身藝術(shù)創(chuàng)意核心理念的設(shè)備而已.

 Simon Colton, the designer of the Painting Fool, is keen to make sure his creation doesn’t attract the same criticism. Unlike earlier ‘a(chǎn)rtists’ such as Aaron, the Painting Fool only needs minimal direction and can come up with its own concepts by going online for material. The software runs its own web searches and trawls through social media sites. It is now beginning to display a kind of imagination too, creating pictures from scratch. One of its original works is a series of fuzzy landscapes, depicting trees and sky. While some might say they have a mechanical look, Colton argues that such reactions arise from people’s double standards towards software-produced and human-produced art. After all, he says, consider that the Painting Fool painted the landscapes without referring to a photo. ‘If a child painted a new scene from its head, you’d say it has a certain level of imagination,’ he points out. The same should be true of a machine.’ Software bugs can also lead to unexpected results. Some of the Painting Fool’s paintings of a chair came out in black and white, thanks to a technical glitch. This gives the work an eerie, ghostlike quality. Human artists like the renowned Ellsworth Kelly are lauded for limiting their colour palette - so why should computers be any different?

 “繪畫(huà)愚人”的設(shè)計(jì)師Simon Colton 十分熱切地要想保證他的商品不容易招來(lái)一樣的指責(zé).不象Aaron那樣的初期藝術(shù)大師,“繪畫(huà)愚人”只必須少量的命令,就能根據(jù)上外網(wǎng)檢索原材料而造成自身的創(chuàng)作核心理念.這一手機(jī)軟件起動(dòng)其本身的搜索網(wǎng)頁(yè)作用,訪問(wèn)每個(gè)社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)網(wǎng)頁(yè)頁(yè)面.它如今也剛開(kāi)始展現(xiàn)出了某類想像力,能從文稿中造就出詳細(xì)的美術(shù)作品.它的原創(chuàng)作品之一是一系列若隱若現(xiàn)風(fēng)景圖畫(huà),勾勒的是花草樹(shù)木與天上.盡管有的人或許要說(shuō)這種美術(shù)作品有一種機(jī)械設(shè)備感,Colton卻辯駁說(shuō),那樣的反映是出自于大家看待手機(jī)軟件創(chuàng)作和人類創(chuàng)作的造型藝術(shù)的雙重標(biāo)準(zhǔn).終究,他那樣說(shuō),要充分考慮“繪畫(huà)愚人”是在沒(méi)有參考一張照片的狀況下繪制了這種景色.“假如一個(gè)孩子從自身的大腦中勾畫(huà)出一副新的景色,你也就要說(shuō)這一小孩有一定的想像力水準(zhǔn)的”,她說(shuō),“放到一臺(tái)設(shè)備上也理應(yīng)一樣.”手機(jī)軟件系統(tǒng)漏洞也是有將會(huì)會(huì)導(dǎo)致出乎意料的實(shí)際效果.“繪畫(huà)愚人”勾勒一把椅子的一些因?yàn)榧夹g(shù)性常見(jiàn)故障著作變成黑白色.這授予了美術(shù)作品一種怪異、怪異的覺(jué)得.有一些如Ellsworth

 Kelly般知名的人類藝術(shù)家由于十分抑制地應(yīng)用自身調(diào)色盤(pán)上的顏色而備受傳揚(yáng)——那麼放到電腦上的身上為何就理應(yīng)各有不同呢? Researchers like Colton don’t believe it is right to measure machine creativity directly to that of humans who ‘have had millennia to develop our skills’. Others, though, are fascinated by the prospect that a computer might create something as original and subtle as our best artists. So far, only one has come close. Composer David Cope invented a program called Experiments in Musical Intelligence, or EMI. Not only did EMI create compositions in Cope’s style, but also that of the most revered classical composers, including Bach, Chopin and Mozart. Audiences were moved to tears, and EMI even fooled classical music experts into thinking they were hearing genuine Bach. Not everyone was impressed however. Some, such as Wiggins, have blasted Cope’s work as pseudoscience, and condemned him for his deliberately vague explanation of how the software worked. Meanwhile, Douglas Hofstadter of Indiana University said EMI created replicas which still rely completely on the original artist’s creative impulses. When audiences found out the truth they were often outraged with Cope, and one music lover even tried to punch him. Amid such controversy, Cope destroyed EMI’s vital databases.

 像Colton那樣的學(xué)術(shù)研究們并不贊同將設(shè)備想像力立即與人類想像力一概而論相互之間較為,由于“人類早已有數(shù)千年的歲月來(lái)發(fā)展趨勢(shì)人們的方法了”.另一些仁的意思癡迷于那樣的市場(chǎng)前景:一臺(tái)電腦上或許能跟人們最好是的藝術(shù)家相提并論,創(chuàng)作出一樣頗具藝術(shù)創(chuàng)意而精致的著作.到迄今為止,只有一個(gè)貼近了這一總體目標(biāo).音樂(lè)家David Cope創(chuàng)造發(fā)明了一個(gè)程序流程,稱之為“歌曲智能化試驗(yàn)”,通稱EMI.EMI不但創(chuàng)作出了Cope設(shè)計(jì)風(fēng)格的樂(lè)曲,并且還仿造出了最受崇敬的古典樂(lè)曲音樂(lè)家們的著作,包含巴赫、肖邦和莫扎特.觀眾們打動(dòng)得淚如雨下,EMI乃至還騙得了古典樂(lè)曲層面的權(quán)威專家,讓她們認(rèn)為自身聽(tīng)見(jiàn)的是真實(shí)的巴赫著作.殊不知并不是任何人都對(duì)于此事表達(dá)了驚訝.有一些人,比如Wiggins,就強(qiáng)烈批判Cope 的此項(xiàng)造就為偽科學(xué),還斥責(zé)他對(duì)這一程序流程究竟怎樣運(yùn)作的表述有意模棱兩可.此外,馬薩諸塞州高校的Douglas Hofstadter覺(jué)得,EMI創(chuàng)作的這種仿制品依然要徹底取決于原創(chuàng)藝術(shù)家的創(chuàng)作設(shè)計(jì)靈感.在粉絲們發(fā)覺(jué)了實(shí)情之后,她們對(duì)Cope 覺(jué)得出現(xiàn)異常惱怒,有一位樂(lè)迷乃至要想打他.在那樣的一片異議聲中,Cope消毀了EMI的重要數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)查詢.

 But why did so many people love the music, yet recoil when they discovered how it was composed? A study by computer scientist David Moffat of Glasgow Caledonian University provides a clue. He asked both expert musicians and non- experts to assess six compositions. The participants weren’t told beforehand whether the tunes were composed by humans or computers, but were asked to guess, and then rate how much they liked each one. People who thought the composer was a computer tended to dislike the piece more than those who believed it was human. This was true even among the experts, who might have been expected to be more objective in their analyses.

 可是怎么會(huì)有那么多的人喜愛(ài)這些歌曲自身,在發(fā)覺(jué)了它是怎樣被創(chuàng)作出去以后卻膽怯了呢?格拉斯哥帕蘇多尼亞高校的電子計(jì)算機(jī)生物學(xué)家David Moffat開(kāi)展的一項(xiàng)科學(xué)研究出示了一條案件線索.他讓技術(shù)專業(yè)作曲家和跨專業(yè)人員另外去評(píng)定六首樂(lè)曲.這種參加者并沒(méi)有被事前告之這種樂(lè)曲到底是由人類還是電腦上所創(chuàng)作的,可是被規(guī)定去開(kāi)展猜想,隨后得出自身對(duì)每一首歌曲愛(ài)好水平的點(diǎn)評(píng).這些覺(jué)得創(chuàng)作者是電腦上的大家一般 會(huì)比這些覺(jué)得其創(chuàng)作者是人類的觀眾更討厭這支樂(lè)曲.即便是在權(quán)威專家們當(dāng)中狀況也是這般,但大家實(shí)際上最初是覺(jué)得權(quán)威專家的剖析評(píng)定會(huì)更為客觀性的.

 Where does this prejudice come from? Paul Bloom of Yale University has a suggestion: he reckons part of the pleasure we get from art stems from the creative process behind the work. This can give it an ‘irresistible essence’, says Bloom. Meanwhile, experiments by Justin Kruger of New York University have shown that people’s enjoyment of an artwork increases if they think more time and effort was needed to create it. Similarly, Colton thinks that when people experience art, they wonder what the artist might have been thinking or what the artist is trying to tell them. It seems obvious, therefore, that with computers producing art, this speculation is cut short - there’s nothing to explore. But as technology becomes increasingly complex, finding those greater depths in computer art could become possible. This is precisely why Colton asks the Painting Fool to tap into online social networks for its inspiration: hopefully this way it will choose themes that will already be meaningful to us.

 這類成見(jiàn)究竟來(lái)源于哪里?耶魯大學(xué)的Paul Bloom提出了一個(gè)看法:他覺(jué)得人們從造型藝術(shù)中獲得的愉快有一部分來(lái)自于著作身后的創(chuàng)作全過(guò)程.這能為它授予一種“不能抵觸的精粹感”,Bloom說(shuō).此外,紐約大學(xué)的Justin Kruger 所開(kāi)展的試驗(yàn)也顯示信息:大家假如覺(jué)得創(chuàng)作某件工藝品必須大量的時(shí)間和活力,便會(huì)更為賞析它.相近地,Colton 覺(jué)得當(dāng)大家去感受造型藝術(shù)時(shí),她們會(huì)禁不住去好奇心藝術(shù)家那時(shí)候已經(jīng)想干什么,或是藝術(shù)家已經(jīng)嘗試向她們表達(dá)什么.因而,這一點(diǎn)好像就很顯著了:當(dāng)創(chuàng)作造型藝術(shù)的是電腦上時(shí),這類遐想就被切斷了——由于沒(méi)什么可探尋的.可是伴隨著技術(shù)性越來(lái)越愈來(lái)愈繁雜,在電腦上的造型藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作中尋找這些實(shí)際意義深遂之處能夠慢慢變成將會(huì).更是因而,Colton才會(huì)標(biāo)示“美術(shù)繪畫(huà)愚人”去檢索各社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)網(wǎng)頁(yè)頁(yè)面來(lái)獲得設(shè)計(jì)靈感:期待根據(jù)這類方法,它可能選擇這些對(duì)人們而言早已具備實(shí)際意義的主題風(fēng)格.

 以上是小編為大家分享的雅思閱讀文章練習(xí)-人工智能,大家可以多積累一些現(xiàn)代科技相關(guān)的背景知識(shí),在考試中也是一個(gè)熱門(mén)類文章題材。

廣州雅思英語(yǔ)學(xué)校成立于1999年,現(xiàn)任校長(zhǎng)是有中國(guó)雅思“教父”之稱的中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院博士、中國(guó)雅思教育開(kāi)拓者,資深留學(xué)教育專家萬(wàn)昌明博士。廣州雅思英語(yǔ)學(xué)校是國(guó)內(nèi)最早的專業(yè)雅思學(xué)校之一,也是英語(yǔ)IELTS考試中文“雅思”命名的首創(chuàng)者之一。十九年來(lái), 廣州雅思英語(yǔ)學(xué)校秉承“教育以學(xué)生為本,以質(zhì)量為先”辦學(xué)宗旨,堅(jiān)持“知識(shí)、激情、勵(lì)志”的教學(xué)理念,發(fā)展成為華南乃至中國(guó)最大的雅思學(xué)校之一。